Ritchie333

[sashi]

and maybe he's also referring to Mongo with his plate of beans in Blazing Saddles, chez Bish "of course".

or to Mongo DB.

Bref.

[Graaf Statler]

[...] nobody is thinking Crow is saying they are rally people with a certain chromosomal condition.

No, he's using a slang term for such people as an insult, which, if my reading of his background is correct, he knows to be offensive. What he's is saying, quite explicitly, is that he does not have to avoid the use of this term on this board because there is no rule against it; that he is not compelled by those rules to listen to polite requests from others; and that he chooses not to engage in discussion about it with people he finds of no use to himself. And what I'm saying is that people who choose to behave like that are arseholes.

It might be culture thing. We, the Dutch for instance have a world wide reputation. And if you hear the Greeks......
Even police officers and yes, priests and high placed person are sometimes using even in public these terms.....
Fuck the holy virgin Mary, you hear it all the day. Mallaka, masturbate, every Greek is using this word at least twice in every sentence in every form, man and woman. If you enter a Greek Ferry boat the first thing you notice everyone is cursing and shouting.

[CrowsNest]

I have already said the usage is meant to be wholly offensive, just not in the way Andrew interprets it (and AFAIK it does indeed come from a corruption of the now obsolete medical term, Mongolism, which itself I believe came from a perceived similarity with the features of the Mongol race). I have been clear in my aims, and I am quite sure my methods are sound. I am happy to declare I see no value to the cause of the sort of people who want to talk more about a single word used to paint a picture of Ritchie's competence, than Ritchie's incompetence. The forum rules are clear, you can expect unpleasant speech here. I have received no public or private rebuke for my post from the staff, and I don't expect I ever will. That really is the most important thing here, not Andrew's dim view of my conduct. Given the purpose of this thread, it's worth noting Ritchie would probably not think twice about using that specific word to directly insult a fellow Administrator, on Wikipedia, probably in a fit of anger but also quite likely with malice aforethought, despite the fact we know the rules forbid that conduct, both for the direct insult and for the generic offennsiveness of it, and the fact it was probably part of a long running war of words between supposed colleagues. And yet we already know nothing would come of it, were a miracle to occur and someone flagged it up. If that doesn't make you viscerally angry, you're probably in the wrong place, have probably picked the wrong cause, and you probably also don't really care about other people in general, let alone have a realistic claim to be an advocate for a specific group. Harsh? Perhaps. But that's what I do. That's why I'm here.

[Graaf Statler]

A anthology:

*Een gekwalificeerd medicus = A qualified physician, Ymnes request a official report about my psychiatric condition.
*Een kwestie van fatsoen= A matter common decency, I have no decency.
*Gek= A madman.
*Gevaarlijke gek= A dangerous madman.
*Doorgedraaide idioot= A crack headed idiot.
*Een enorme schade=I caused a enormous damage.
*Permanent verbannen= I had to be infinite banned (Years ago)
*Dwaas= A fool.
*And I am suffering cognitieve dissonantie en externe attributie lijden. No idea what it is, but it sounds serious.

That is about me. Approved by arbcom and the wiki-manegment. So, where are we talking about?

(Source)

[AndrewForson]

I have already said the usage is meant to be wholly offensive, just not in the way Andrew interprets it (and AFAIK it does indeed come from a corruption of the now obsolete medical term, Mongolism, which itself I believe came from a perceived similarity with the features of the Mongol race). I have been clear in my aims, and I am quite sure my methods are sound. I am happy to declare I see no value to the cause of the sort of people who want to talk more about a single word used to paint a picture of Ritchie's competence, than Ritchie's incompetence. The forum rules are clear, you can expect unpleasant speech here. I have received no public or private rebuke for my post from the staff, and I don't expect I ever will. That really is the most important thing here, not Andrew's dim view of my conduct. Given the purpose of this thread, it's worth noting Ritchie would probably not think twice about using that specific word to directly insult a fellow Administrator, on Wikipedia, probably in a fit of anger but also quite likely with malice aforethought, despite the fact we know the rules forbid that conduct, both for the direct insult and for the generic offennsiveness of it, and the fact it was probably part of a long running war of words between supposed colleagues. And yet we already know nothing would come of it, were a miracle to occur and someone flagged it up. If that doesn't make you viscerally angry, you're probably in the wrong place, have probably picked the wrong cause, and you probably also don't really care about other people in general, let alone have a realistic claim to be an advocate for a specific group. Harsh? Perhaps. But that's what I do. That's why I'm here.

Ah yes. If you are not more concerned about some imaginary slight that Mr Nest thinks Ritchie might perhaps one day use in some hypothetical situation, than about Mr Nest's admittedly conscious and deliberate slur on people who have done him no harm, then according to Mr Nest you don't really care about other people. This is, of course, bollocks. What he means is, if you do not agree with him about the extreme righteousness of everything he does, and do not continually shower him with praise for the cunningness of his plans and the cleverness by which he executes them, and their effectiveness in achieving his highly important goals, then you are of no use to him and he wants you to go away. This is, of course, bollocks. In fact, Mr Nest's claim to have clear aims and sound methods are almost certainly bollocks, too, but I reserve judgement on those until we see a clear explanation of exactly what and how he has achieved with them -- until now, none has been forthcoming, in spite of numerous requests. My private suspicion is that there are no external, real-world, aims, other than Mr Nest demonstrating, to the satisfaction of himself if of nobody else, just how completely right he is about everything and how everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest is either half-witted, or evil, or both.

[Graaf Statler]

My private suspicion is that there are no external, real-world, aims, other than Mr Nest demonstrating, to the satisfaction of himself if of nobody else, just how completely right he is about everything and how everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest is either half-witted, or evil, or both.

Pfffff. What other conclusion than this I can draw after where I went true? Don't forget my SanFanBan is taken on the highest level and approved by madam the director Maher herself..... It feels a bit like one way traffic, Andrew, with all respect.

[sashi]

About that Ritchie guy, I did wonder what all this was about at the time...

[CrowsNest]

I have already said the usage is meant to be wholly offensive, just not in the way Andrew interprets it (and AFAIK it does indeed come from a corruption of the now obsolete medical term, Mongolism, which itself I believe came from a perceived similarity with the features of the Mongol race). I have been clear in my aims, and I am quite sure my methods are sound. I am happy to declare I see no value to the cause of the sort of people who want to talk more about a single word used to paint a picture of Ritchie's competence, than Ritchie's incompetence. The forum rules are clear, you can expect unpleasant speech here. I have received no public or private rebuke for my post from the staff, and I don't expect I ever will. That really is the most important thing here, not Andrew's dim view of my conduct. Given the purpose of this thread, it's worth noting Ritchie would probably not think twice about using that specific word to directly insult a fellow Administrator, on Wikipedia, probably in a fit of anger but also quite likely with malice aforethought, despite the fact we know the rules forbid that conduct, both for the direct insult and for the generic offennsiveness of it, and the fact it was probably part of a long running war of words between supposed colleagues. And yet we already know nothing would come of it, were a miracle to occur and someone flagged it up. If that doesn't make you viscerally angry, you're probably in the wrong place, have probably picked the wrong cause, and you probably also don't really care about other people in general, let alone have a realistic claim to be an advocate for a specific group. Harsh? Perhaps. But that's what I do. That's why I'm here.

Ah yes. If you are not more concerned about some imaginary slight that Mr Nest thinks Ritchie might perhaps one day use in some hypothetical situation, than about Mr Nest's admittedly conscious and deliberate slur on people who have done him no harm, then according to Mr Nest you don't really care about other people. This is, of course, bollocks. What he means is, if you do not agree with him about the extreme righteousness of everything he does, and do not continually shower him with praise for the cunningness of his plans and the cleverness by which he executes them, and their effectiveness in achieving his highly important goals, then you are of no use to him and he wants you to go away. This is, of course, bollocks. In fact, Mr Nest's claim to have clear aims and sound methods are almost certainly bollocks, too, but I reserve judgement on those until we see a clear explanation of exactly what and how he has achieved with them -- until now, none has been forthcoming, in spite of numerous requests. My private suspicion is that there are no external, real-world, aims, other than Mr Nest demonstrating, to the satisfaction of himself if of nobody else, just how completely right he is about everything and how everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest is either half-witted, or evil, or both.

I've bolded the only part of this post that was accurate. In reference to itself. We spoke about wasted time, I can only wonder why you want to waste it in this fashion? These risible attempt to provoke, is what one expects to find as part of the normal discourse between the people we are here to critique. As they might say, if not in these precise and impeccably polite form of words, you lack the standing or credibility to be anything more than a nuisance. If sound theoreticals don't stimulate you to properly focus, there's plenty of real example stuff in this thread, before your diversion of it. And perhaps your inability to remember having already being told the things you are still apparently seeking regarding my efforts, is because I told them to your old identity. You've heard it, even though I think you dismissed it. Having seen you refer to that old identity here recently as if it isn't you, when we all I know it is, makes me now think you might be a little schizophrenic. Note now I used the proper medical term, out of respect for what we now know about your sensitivity.

[Graaf Statler]

Gentleman, or gentlelady's, lets finish this indeed wasting of time with the consensus agree to disagree. It is clear to me nobody wanted to insult people with a chromosomal aberration, and this discussion can us bring no good, or a winner. if you go on it will only be a repeating of arguments, and insulting each other what looks to me hardly useful and contra productive.

[AndrewForson]

[...]makes me now think you might be a little schizophrenic. Note now I used the proper medical term, out of respect for what we now know about your sensitivity.

'Nuff said, really. Anyone who disagrees with CN is, in his estimation, mentally defective or mentally ill. Not a useful basis for discussion, but at least it's out in the open now. Otherwise, I agree with Graaf.